Religion

[Penchant]

At minimum, paganism should be the exception, not the norm that it seems in BM today. See a pagan? Destroy him however you can. Stab. Fine. Ban. War. Protest. Scheme to remove from power. I can see reasons for the occasional pagan, but those rare pagans should be constantly berated to either found their faith into a formal religion or join a formal religion. Being a pagan is the religious equivalent of being a rogue, in that you are without spiritual leadership and hierarchy, which is the properly ordained social structure.

Atheists are the real issue. "Pagans" are also bad when they are just "pagans" and have no answer for religion other than being a pagan, so in other words, they are an atheist claiming to be a pagan. Pagans with their own religions they haven't decided to found as a mainstream religion or whatever you want to call a non-pagan religion, are still good, although encouraging them to found it as a religion is also a great idea.

[Anaris]

All different play styles should encouraged

As a general principle, I'm not at all sure I agree with this. Even if we limit it to "play styles which are not aimed at ruining everyone else's fun."

Many different play styles should be permitted. However, I really do think that there are play styles that are totally legitimate, and should not be prevented in any way, but should still not be encouraged because they will tend to operate to the detriment of the game as a whole if they are played by a significant proportion of the playerbase.

If even 50% of our characters are in the mold of the stereotypical "Game of Thrones" power-seeker, we'll end up with utter chaos. However, having a small percentage—not sure what level would be good, maybe 5-15%, but that's just guessing—significantly increases the fun in the game, because they will tend to create power struggles and other interesting storylines.

Similarly, with religion, it's all very well to say that we should encourage people to pick the playstyle that best suits their character, but I would say that it is of net benefit to the game to have a larger proportion than we currently do who see religion as an important force in their lives and an authority to be respected and listened to. That, of course, requires that fewer characters see religion as just something to pay lip service to while they really serve their realms.

[Anaris]

Atheists are the real issue.

Atheists are forbidden.

Having large numbers of pagans is not forbidden, but it is not desirable, either. It is probably good to have some, but in general, with more people following and actually paying attention to religions, religion in general gains more legitimacy as hierarchy of power separate from realms.

[Penchant]

Atheists are forbidden.

Having large numbers of pagans is not forbidden, but it is not desirable, either. It is probably good to have some, but in general, with more people following and actually paying attention to religions, religion in general gains more legitimacy as hierarchy of power separate from realms.

I am aware although most pagans who are players are atheists with a pagan tag so they don't get in trouble. "'What religion are you?' 'I am a pagan' 'Cool, so what are you pagan beliefs?' 'Umm....'" Is what I am referencing because the game doesn't truly forbid atheists, just confirmed atheists. A person who has not decided on a religion to follow, is an atheist.

[Anaris]

A person who has not decided on a religion to follow, is an atheist.

No, that's completely wrong.

A person who has not decided on a religion to follow is an agnostic, or may choose to call themselves a seeker or some similar name.

An atheist is specifically one who denies the existence of a higher power.

[Penchant]

No, that's completely wrong.

A person who has not decided on a religion to follow is an agnostic, or may choose to call themselves a seeker or some similar name.

An atheist is specifically one who denies the existence of a higher power.

Hmmm I was taking my definition of atheist from a  census which defined IIRC atheist as not believing in any religion while confirmed atheist being the belief that there is no higher power. (Although a quick search doesn't exactly disagree with me either.)

[De-Legro]

Hmmm I was taking my definition of atheist from a  census which defined IIRC atheist as not believing in any religion while confirmed atheist being the belief that there is no higher power. (Although a quick search doesn't exactly disagree with me either.)

Modern times, modern definitions and assumptions. Atheist is common use these days for anyone that does fit into the idea of being "religious". It is not correct in terms of strict definitions.

[Vita`]

De-Legro, I know I've run across text somewhere in the game that mentions pagan nobles as subscribing to the same local beliefs as commoners. No one should want to belief in ideas from dirty commoners. Thats why noble faiths have have a proper noble structure guiding the commoner's beliefs.

That commoner beliefs text is probably one reason for my previous statements.

FWIW, one of my characters is currently a game-mechanic pagan because all the other faiths don't align with his beliefs and he's not willing to become a priest. He is aware of another religion being founded soon he plans to join. But the fact he's not in a noble faith does trouble his soul too. Like I said, there are occasional exceptions.

[Vellos]

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3727.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3723.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3725.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3726.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3722.0.html

Woah, you mean that these issues have gotten substantive discussion before with pragmatically laid-out feature requests?

And the best part?

Wrong game.

You are thinking of religion as a tool to power and more buttons to click. It was never intended to be that, and that's why you find it lacking. It's a roleplaying device. If you think of it as a gameplay mechanic, you will always be disappointed.

Though the proposals do include some buttons, they pretty much entirely are about complementing, encouraging, and supporting RP with mechanics that buttress current activities.

Religion doesn't need to be god-modded to be improved. We just need some tweaks. The things listed above range from very simple (H/P for priests) to very complex (religious diplomacy).

[Anaris]

De-Legro, I know I've run across text somewhere in the game that mentions pagan nobles as subscribing to the same local beliefs as commoners. No one should want to belief in ideas from dirty commoners. Thats why noble faiths have have a proper noble structure guiding the commoner's beliefs.

That commoner beliefs text is probably one reason for my previous statements.

FWIW, one of my characters is currently a game-mechanic pagan because all the other faiths don't align with his beliefs and he's not willing to become a priest. He is aware of another religion being founded soon he plans to join. But the fact he's not in a noble faith does trouble his soul too. Like I said, there are occasional exceptions.

Um...no. No, if that's even written anywhere, you've misinterpreted it.

"Pagan" in the BattleMaster sense means exactly one thing, and nothing else: that you do not subscribe to any of the game-recognized religions on the continent you are on.

There is no serious stigma to it, and should not be, because, for instance, if a devout but non-priestly Bloodstar worshiper emigrates to Beluaterra, he will be a pagan. So what's he supposed to do? Convert to some BT religion that he doesn't actually believe in? Found a branch of SA on BT and spend the rest of his life as, effectively, a religious administrator and salesman?

No, in the common case, he should remain a pagan until and unless either he returns to Dwilight or someone else founds a branch of SA on BT that he can join. Because being a pagan has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being peasant-like.

[Vita`]

I'll start looking for it now.

EDIT: Found it on the Invite Priest page. "You are a pagan. Since you are not a member of any religious order that was nobly enlightened or founded, no matter what spirits or deities you currently are worshipping, they apparently all took their origins from the lowly peasants. Not something very honourable to be even mentioned about."

And while this has always just been my personal interpretation of religion, since there's no real authoritative explanation (nor should be, imo), I've long believed that each continent has different gods/deities, thus explaining why each has different faiths. Thus, a believer in SA can find true faith in Quintarianism on BT without having to forsake their belief that the bloodstars influence dwilight humans.

[Tom]

And the best part?

You link to five proposals and then quote one specific answer to one of them, as if it would apply to all.

If I wrote down what I think of that, this post would be moderated away. But that is not the way to have an honest discussion. That is manipulative, dialectic winning-an-argument style.

I don't think we have anything to discuss on that foundation.

[vonGenf]

You link to five proposals and then quote one specific answer to one of them, as if it would apply to all.

If I wrote down what I think of that, this post would be moderated away. But that is not the way to have an honest discussion. That is manipulative, dialectic winning-an-argument style.

Tom, the answer that Vellos quoted was given by you at the beginning of this thread, not as an answer to one of his proposals. Vellos is merely pointing you to feature requests he made in January that he believes fit with your vision of religion in BM.

You haven't actually given your opinion on any of the proposals he's listed, positive or negative.

[Tom]

Hm, I may have misinterpreted the intention of his reply.

And yet, every game mechanic added will turn religion into a more mechanical and less role-playing entity. I'm not in the mood to fully explain that, but it's fairly straightforward. You can't discuss with game-mechanics, basically.

Then again, do whatever the !@#$ you want.

[Vellos]

Hm, I may have misinterpreted the intention of his reply.

And yet, every game mechanic added will turn religion into a more mechanical and less role-playing entity. I'm not in the mood to fully explain that, but it's fairly straightforward. You can't discuss with game-mechanics, basically.

Then again, do whatever the !@#$ you want.

Wowza.

I did not mean to be doing anything upsetting. As von Genf said; I was quoting your reply to this thread in order to point folks at my earlier proposals.

I guess I don't understand your point. I thought when you talked about problems with folks wanting to have lots of buttons, that was a way of saying that you objected to their desire to make religion something that's pretty much god-modded, unbalanced, or focused on button-clicking. What I now hear you saying (and maybe I was just misunderstanding before) is that you are categorically opposed to the addition of any new buttons.

Am I understanding that correctly? Am I also understanding correctly that you won't explain the basis for that opposition?

I think what many of us who spend a lot of time playing the religious game in BM feel is that current game mechanics undermine and disincentivize players from carrying out otherwise reasonable and rational roleplays and plotlines. Excommunicating a priest in BM, for example, is kind of a joke, so it's hardly worth RPing about or working towards. That's just one example, but the point is that the current limited set of mechanics doesn't have a clear explanation for why those options exist and not others, and many actions that seem like they should be possible aren't.

I am not trying to be hostile, really. It's just that I spend more time playing the religion side of BM than most other parts, and know of many other players who do the same, and so I have a vested interest in improving that part of the BM gameplay experience.